Follow Up: President Obama & Governor Romney: Two Sides Of The Same Coin

I am posting this tonight, as the polls close, to remove the notion, as best I can, that my reason for publishing it is political. I assure you my purpose is not political. This is a follow-up to my earlier article President Obama & Governor Romney: Two Sides Of The Same Coin. I will publish it again perhaps tomorrow. No matter how the election turns out I think my observations are extremely relevant. If you are going to comment on or discuss this post please read my first article and this one fully before doing so.

Since publishing that article I have been willingly, and at times unwillingly, engaged in lengthy discussions by every conceivable means: texting, e-mail, social media, and, my old favorite, verbal discussions. I have been amazed, encouraged, disappointed, and sometimes downright disillusioned at much of what I have heard. Mostly I have experienced the latter two.

Let me first say that I, as a supporter of religious liberty, have no problem with someone running for office who doesn't agree with my faith or worships a different god. I also understand that in American politics someone's religious belief will not generally be part of the public debate. I actually thrill at the diversity of my country, and shall pray for God's grace to be upon us and our leaders no matter who is in office. I love my country.

But I am also Christian and a Bible believer. I cannot separate my citizen self from my Christian self, so my faith will influence the level of my support for any candidate. What a candidate believes about God is primary to me. It is the first commandment, the first table of the law, and the ground upon which God judges the people of the earth. This was the premise for my first article.

When it comes to Governor Romney, discovering the detail of his personal religious beliefs has been very difficult. I respect, in some ways, his reticence to discuss his faith while running for office. But he has stated publicly that he knows and believes the major teachings of his church. The most basic teaching of any church is their definition of God.

I don't want to rewrite my previous article, but I must expand my statement about the god of Mormonism. In my article I said that Mormon theology “is a confusing sort of humanistic polytheism (a man-like god and deified men and women)”. Recently I have been reading Mormon theology almost to the point of blindness. I have deliberately avoided non-Mormon writers because I didn't want to be influenced or slanted in my assessment. 

I have been surprised to find Mormon theologians who are openly struggling with their theology and who seem to be aware that there are deep problems. I appreciate and encourage their struggle. But with that being said there are still some hurdles that will probably never be overcome no matter how much struggle takes place. The intractable problem is with the teachings of their early prophets and church hierarchy about their god.

I will state it as simply as I can: the Mormon belief that God the Father and God the Son have eternal, necessary "bodies" is a seemingly impossible theological roadblock to any consideration that Mormons believe in the same God as mainline Christians. Many Mormon theologians seem to agree. This is not a mean-spirited statement, it is clear to me that theologians on both sides of this divide politely agree with that general statement.

Here are a few quotes from James E. Faulconer, professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University, he has a PHD in philosophy from Pennsylvania State University. I don't think anyone can reasonably question his credentials to speak about Mormon theology. I came across his writings while searching a list of Mormon scholars. The article I quote is Divine Embodiment and Transcendence: Propaedeutic Thoughts and Questions as published in the Mormon periodical Element; Spring 2005. The word “propaedeutic” simply means a preliminary or preparatory instruction. Dr. Faulconer struggles in this article with the subject of the body of the Mormon god. I do not use the small g in god as an insult, but to highlight the fact that we disagree on the definition of God. Dr. Faulconer also uses this device. He wrote:

“Latter-day Saint doctrine is that the Father and the Son have bodies: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also" (D&C 130:22). At first glance this seems straightforward: the Father and the Son are embodied. However, it requires very little reflection to begin to wonder what that means. Joseph Smith's first vision tells us that their bodies are able to hover in the air and that they are bright beyond description (Joseph Smith History 1:17). Brigham Young and others taught that, though their bodies are bodies of flesh and bone, they do not have blood (cf. Journal of Discourses 7:163, Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History 5)”

“Joseph Smith's most clear statement of God's embodiment comes as part of a denial of Nicean trinitarianism: "That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones" (Teachings 181).”

“By not defining God as "wholly Other," existing in a realm absolutely transcendent of this world and being the being on which this world absolutely depends, even for its existence, LDS thought makes a radical break with traditional thought.”

Next Dr. Faulconer says the same thing I have said:

“The consequences of rejecting onto-theology, in other words, the consequences of believing that God is embodied run deep in our cultural and intellectual heritage, to their very roots. As a result, some of our theological discussions may simply be wrong-headed, trying to speak of God with concepts that do not apply or at least implicitly trying to make our understanding of him fit inappropriate concepts and conceptual structures. Even if we somehow manage to escape those problems, our discussions are likely to be shot through with deep equivocation. These sorts of problems make it easier to be sympathetic to those who accuse Latter-day Saints of not worshiping the God of Christianity. If by "God of Christianity" they mean "God of traditional Christian philosophical theology," then they are right: we do not believe in or worship that god.” (Emphasis mine)

I politely, but firmly, agree with Dr. Faulconer, we do not worship the same God. In his conclusion he wrote:

“The scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith allow us to say little more about divine embodiment than that God has a body with the same form as ours. From that I think we can also infer that the ontological gulf between ourselves and God cannot be as wide as the tradition assumes, whether the tradition takes God to being itself or to be the Good (and, so, beyond being). Though it is difficult to go confidently beyond that negative conclusion, two things seem to follow: First, the Latter-day Saint understanding of what it means to be in the world is, implicitly, radically different than is the understanding of any other Christian group, though it is not at clear what additionally follows from that difference. Second, our experience of the body, the only standard we have for understanding embodiment, suggests that to say that God has a body is to say that his omniscience and omnipotence must be understood in ways quite different from traditional Christianity because embodiment implies situated openness to a world. In other words, divine embodiment also implies that God is affected by the world and by persons in his world. This means that the belief that God is embodied implies that he encounters the world and that he is, in some ways, passive with respect to that which he encounters, and his passivity may include some notion of unconsciousness.”

Let me be clear. The God of the Bible does not have a body as part of or a necessary extension of His being. Anyone who claims that their god does have an essential body worships a different god than the God who is revealed in the Bible. Furthermore anyone or any church which teaches that their god's body appears to be, is like, or is a human body is clearly included in the list of corrupt theology given in Romans 1:23-25, this passage clearly states that such a belief contributes to the wrath of God falling on a nation and the removal of God's preventative grace as I argued in my earlier article.

Some will argue that the Son Of God in orthodox Christianity has a body. This is a clear misunderstanding of the person of Jesus Christ and orthodox Christianity's teaching concerning Him. The eternal Son existed before the body of Jesus came into existence. Read John chapter 1. In orthodox Christianity the body of Jesus is not a necessary attribute of the being of the eternal Son. The body of Jesus is not God, it is human. God is manifest in it, but is not it.

The truth about the differences between Mormonism, one of the fastest growing religions in the world, and orthodox Christianity has been taught and preached from fundamental and evangelical pulpits throughout this land for years. I have been a witness to this over the last 40 years in ministry. I have sat in conferences where Theology has been declared to the be the highest standard by which we humans are judged by our creator. But, sadly, for some it seems this truth was only valid when it didn't indict a favored political candidate. For that reason more than one commentator has labeled the Christian right as hypocrites.

No matter who is elected today that label will still stick and I think it does not bode well for our country. I have feared the mixing of politics and Christianity that began decades ago would lead to a corruption that might bring us into a direct confrontation with God and I have lived to see it happen... I think. It is my opinion that only God's grace will save us from the fruits of this defection. If you don't understand this then please read my first article.

To my more theologically trained readers please know that I am aware that the use of non-technical words opens me up to extensive clarification and disagreement. The more reasonable among you will understand that I wrote this post for a broad audience. With that said I will not now technically defend my choice of words to those who will take advantage of this non-technical post. I will, most likely, delete comments that attempt to do this. Thanks for reading.

Jesus, God's Dwelling Place

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Jesus was revolutionary in more ways than some may realize, and here is one of the most revolutionary truths.

Ancient religion was about places. Places where the gods or god dwelt. Every religion had a sacred place, a temple where the people went to meet with God. The Jews had theirs in Jerusalem, and the Samaritans had theirs on Mount Gerizim.

This same way of thinking exists in religions today. The Muslims have Mecca, Hindus have Varanasi, Buddhists have Lumbini. Many Christians mistakenly look for God in places… but, what we are taught in the New Testament is God is found in a man: Jesus Christ. Jesus never built a temple or required one be built.

The water of life flows from Him to His people. The incarnation changed the world, and the way the world should think. The center of the kingdom of God moved from a place to a person. He has risen from the dead... He is alive... worship Him.

Participation In A Traditional Church May Save Your Life

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The people this verse was written to had just been reminded of the saving plan and labor of God who had, by His Gospel work, secured their place in the everlasting glory to come. But those verses were nested in foreboding darkness... the darkness of the end-times. What will keep that end-time generation anchored in light through those dark times? Paul says it is the truth they have been taught and have believed. Paul called this saving light “the traditions”. The word tradition literally means “the content of instruction that has been handed down.” BDAG

Paul knew the importance of each generation holding to the truth of God’s Word. All it takes is the defection of one generation for the comfort of truth gained by faithful Christians to be lost, and generations can then be left with no light for their path… even when the darkness of the end-time apostasy comes.

A church should work hard at building an enduring tradition of truth which can be handed down from generation to generation. Noah consistently labored over decades to build an ark that would carry his family through dark days of judgment. A traditional church is constantly building an ark of truth for each successive generation.

A traditional church is easily recognized. I'm not talking about architecture, music, or whether they sit on pews or chairs. A traditional church is one where the Bible is actually taught, whether the people sit on pews, floors, or on rough wooden planks, or use 50 gallon drums to keep rhythm as they sing. A solid tradition of opening the words of the Book is the norm not the exception. In each worship service and class the real meaning of the verses in the Bible is the focus, not the traditions of men about those verses, or religious rituals. There can be no greater legacy than Truth. And those who find themselves in the darkness will see this beacon of light as their family's ark of safety.

The generation who will be here to endure the end-time apostasy, and the worldwide judgment mentioned by the Apostle Paul, must follow Paul’s admonition in this verse. They must “stand fast” and “hold” to the Word of God. This must be their demand: give us the Scriptures, for in them we have eternal life and enduring strength. That generation will be standing on the shoulders of generations before who also faithfully held to “the traditions”. A church which stands on “the traditions” is a church built on solid ground.

Absolute Proof - Beyond Any Doubt

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs,

In US courts we have various standards for decisions made by jurors. In criminal cases a verdict of guilty cannot be returned unless the juror is sure of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This means that the evidence presented to the juror has established a particular point to a moral certainty, and it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. But “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean absolute proof or the absence of any doubt.

In civil cases there is the standard of “proof by clear and convincing evidence.” This is a lower burden of proof than reasonable doubt. It is a decision by the Juror that there is high probability that “a fact sought to be proved is true.”

In the language of the New Testament a word of evidence and decision making was used in this verse. It is translated “infallible proofs”. The Greek scholars in Friberg’s Analytical Greek Lexicon defined this word as: “evidence that removes doubt.” This is the highest level of proof: these people witnessed the same reality over, and over, and over again, to the point that they could not mistake the truth of what they had witnessed. The proof was absolute. This word was used here by Luke concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Second-Guessing Jesus

John 4:3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. 4 And he must needs go through Samaria.

The disciples of Jesus looked to Him for leadership. Without His guidance they would have had no notion of what to do or where to go. Jesus had the plan and knew what He was doing. He walked in the light, so those who walked with Him, following His plan, also walked in His light.

When He said he was going through Samaria, some of His disciples may have thought His light had dimmed. We are quick to judge His commands based on our own comfort levels. The Samaritans and Jews were not on friendly terms, and had not been for centuries. In fact, Pilate was removed from Palestine by the Roman authorities because of his mafia-like tactics in dealing with their ongoing feud. Jews had been killed just traveling though Samaria. But Jesus said go, so they went. He was in full control of His Government. He controls it still.

It became clear, after the fact, what Jesus' purpose was in going that way. It has been my experience that it is often only afterward that His motives become visible. Sometimes His purpose is never made visible to us. I guess that's what faith is all about. His purpose was to preach the Gospel to the Samaritans. And that is just what He did.

Jesus’ authority has not withered away with time. He still commands His forces and accomplishes His plans in an organized purposeful way. He leads His disciples where He wants them to go, and He uses them to accomplish His plan. It is wise to walk in His light.

Is Prayer Necessary For Salvation?

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I was asked the question in the title a few months back at the end of a Bible class. The notion that a prayer for salvation is necessary to receive salvation is so popular today that it is tightly woven into the fabric of contemporary Christianity. Question it and some look at you like you are seriously disturbed. So... I guess you can just call me crazy Larry, because... well... I questioned it...

This is not such a difficult question to answer, but it may be difficult to hear the answer. I didn't have time in that class to answer the question properly, so I wrote this answer to make it available for our members to read and carefully study. I have posted it on my blog to make it available to anyone who wants to study the subject. So… here goes… first some Bible facts:

• There is not one verse in the Bible that claims a person must pray to be saved… not one.
• Even though the Bible records various examples of people being evangelized, there is no example in the Bible of any believer asking an unbeliever to pray for salvation… not one.
• There is no place in the Bible where prayer as a component of salvation is systematically discussed. What I mean by that is there is no place in the Bible where a serious Bible student can go to find instruction on how this prayer for salvation thing works.
• There is no place in the Bible that tells me what should be said in this prayer or any example of a prayer for salvation. Some might say that Luke 18:13 tells us what must be said. But that prayer doesn’t meet the standard usually required by those who teach prayer for salvation from Romans 10:13. There is no confession, and no mention of Jesus in the prayer. This prayer contains no acknowledgment of saving faith or the Gospel, and there is no place in the context of this verse or the rest of the Bible which promotes the use of this prayer by others.
• There is also no place in the Bible where a person is requested to “ask Jesus into your heart.” In fact the two words “ask Jesus” never appear together in the Bible.
• There is no place in the Bible where prayer and salvation are discussed in the same context. Ah, but some may say Romans 10:13 meets that standard. Before I go there let me first mention that resting an essential salvation doctrine on one verse that appeared decades after the ministry of Jesus is dangerous.

Romans 10:13 is a partial quote of the Old Testament passage Joel 2:32. So in order to interpret it properly it must be studied in two locations, first the Old Testament and then the New Testament. But it is interesting that I have never come across a proponent of prayer for salvation who even knew this was a quote from the Old Testament. I'm not trying to be rude, but if a person hasn't studied the verse enough to know it is a quote, then it is clear that person hasn't studied the subject sufficiently enough to even have an opinion. Especially when dealing with the bible doctrine of salvation.

It must be noted that the word “prayer” does not appear in Romans 10:13. Paul did use the word prayer in Romans 10:1, but not anywhere else in chapter 10. The words translated prayer and call are not the same words. Confession, as it is used in Romans 10:9-10, is also not prayer. Confess means, "a public statement of what one believes." (Friberg's Analytical Greek Lexicon) The word call is used in Romans 10:12, and the Old Testament verse quoted in Romans 10:13 was used by Paul to support the statement he made in Romans 10:12. Verse 12 is part of the contextual discussion that Jews and non-Jews can now have the same standing with God.

The word call in Romans 10:12 is a present participle. Which means it defines “its subject as belonging to a certain class.” (Burton’s Greek Grammar) Call is not something done once, but it is a repetitive habitual action which identifies someone as belonging to a specific class of people. This class of people has already believed (Romans 10:14) and are, therefore, in the class of those who regularly call on the Lord. The intent of this verse is to teach that God "is rich" to this class of people no matter their race. 

Call in Romans 10:13 comes from a Hebrew word which means “to enter into an intensive relationship as someone who calls.” (Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew Lexicon) Paul’s reason for using this Old Testament verse was to support the truth that Jews and Gentiles can now both be in a relationship with the Messiah because of the “righteousness which is of faith” (Romans 10:6). Paul was not discussing how a person gets into a relationship with God, but what class of persons are in a relationship with Him. This righteousness which comes by faith to all who believe the gospel, both Jew and Greek, has been the heart of Paul's discussion since the beginning of Romans.

An understanding of the gospel is necessary for salvation along with belief in that gospel. In every case of evangelism in the New Testament people were called to believe or have faith in that gospel. Those who have believed the gospel can and will now freely and regularly “call” on the name of the Lord. This teaching of salvation by grace through faith in the gospel of the Lord Jesus is supported throughout the New Testament. Prayer associated with the immediate work of salvation is supported nowhere in Scripture.

Why is this so important? Well there are at least three reasons:

1. Salvation is the most important doctrine in the world and accuracy on this subject is profoundly important. Even if you differ with me on this subject of prayer the importance of the doctrine should cause you to pause and carefully seek the truth apart from your own tradition or personal desires.
2. The bible is the rule of our faith and practice, so every belief should be tested by the Scriptures.
3. People who have been led in a prayer for salvation, as I was, often struggle with doubts about their salvation. They may tend to examine their prayer and wonder if it was good enough... did I say the right words, or was I sincere enough? Instead of looking with faith and confidence at the gospel for salvation and trusting that Jesus did everything right on our behalf they may be forever bound to look at themselves and their performance for confidence. And that leads to doubt and spiritual struggles, because we can never be sure we did something good enough. If you were led in a prayer for salvation I am not saying you are now lost, what I am saying is there is no evidence that prayer has any essential role to play in salvation. Turn your attention to the gospel work of Jesus Christ... that is where the firm confidence of salvation is found. Prayer is a good thing... but it cannot save. Only Jesus' Gospel work can reconcile us to God.

Doctrine Matters

I Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

The City of Corinth was one of the most culturally mixed cities in the world. It was strategically located on a major shipping lane between Spain & Italy to the west, and Turkey to the east. Its location gave rise to a complex, multicultural populous.

The church at Corinth mirrored the population, and this complexity spilled over into the church’s belief system. It seems the church was plagued by division. It may seem odd to say, but this division has been a blessing to every Christian since that time, because it gave us the Apostle Paul's response to doctrinal error. We have both the example of how to deal with error, and his clear statement of vital truth.

If it doesn't matter what a church believes then 1st and 2nd Corinthians would have never been written. And I am not speaking of the doctrinal confession of a church, even though that is of great importance, but the belief system of the people. Paul wrote these letters to the people not just the ordained leadership. The notion that professed Christ followers can believe anything and everything without accountability is invalided here. Belief systems matter.

In the case dealt with in this chapter, various groups in the Corinthian membership contended for the false notions that there is no resurrection of the dead, or the resurrection of Christ had not happened yet. So we are blessed with the Christian answer on this issue. Paul responded by stating that the resurrection:

• is a vital part of the Gospel, I Corinthians 15:1-4
• was testified to by witnesses, I Corinthians 15:5-10
• was preached and professed at the founding of the Church in Corinth, I Corinthians 15:11, 12
• was a required belief, I Corinthians 15:12-19, 31-34
• is vital to every other Christian doctrine, I Corinthians 15:16-18, 20-28
• is the hope and glory of all Christians. I Corinthians 15:51-58

Based on this chapter we know that faithful Christ followers must believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. I affirm this truth... I believe, without any reservation, that Jesus has risen from the dead, and He is alive in a physical body at this very moment.

Little Candy Bar Or Big Candy Bar?

Romans 15:12 in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Many common English translations of the Bible use the word “hope” here instead of “trust”. It is true that various usages of this Greek word are translated with the word “hope,” as in v. 13. But that does not mean it should be translated “hope” here. This translation conflict is helpful because it focuses our attention on the fuller meaning of this word. Let me explain.

The hope or anticipation of a future experience must be based on some knowledge, belief, or experience. I read a psych book on fatherhood a number of years ago and there was an experiment mentioned that intrigued me. Children from unstable, fatherless homes, and children from stable homes were individually offered a candy bar deal. They could have a smaller candy bar now, but if they waited a few hours they could have a candy bar twice the size. The majority of the fatherless children took the small candy bar, while the majority of the children with fathers waited for the big candy bar.

It was a trust issue... but springing from the trust issue was the anticipation of a sure future. Trust and hope are welded together as cause and effect. Each child made the decision based upon personal experience. Those who had a stable home life anchored by a dependable father had the experience upon which to base their expectation. Trust turned into hope. The word in this verse comprehends that whole meaning.

The definition of the word translated “trust” in this verse is: “to look forward to something with an indication of the person on whom hope is based.” BDAG This passage focuses our attention on the foundation of the anticipation of non-Jewish Christians. The reason believing non-Jews can anticipate a place in the inheritance of the eternal day is because of who Jesus is and what He has done for us.

The deeper our relationship with Jesus, the more sure our hope becomes, and the greater our anticipation of the eternal day. The reason a lot of people want their spiritual candy bar now is because they don't have a solid relationship with the foundation of all hope: Jesus. Get to know Him...

To Become

And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. Mark 1:17

The phrase “make you to become” has amazing content. The word translated “become” is the same word translated “made” in John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Jesus will utilize the same power He used to create the worlds to transform his servants “to become” what He wants them to be.

Bauer-Danker Greek English Lexicon says the word as used in this verse means: “to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition”. Encapsulated in this word is the inability of these men to do this for or to themselves. They had no power to change their natures… no power to create something new within the roots of their personality. Their condition was unchangeable without Jesus.

But the power of Christianity is the power of Christ. He can make us to become! He does within us what no power on earth can do… and what we can never do for ourselves.

All Jesus required from them was to “Come ye after me”. That’s really the big one in this life isn’t it? Giving ourselves to Jesus so He can make something new!